Trends

I don't follow the polls much; I especially don't pay attention to single polls. However, what I do notice is trends, that is, when polls keep moving in the same direction - or alternatively, when over time they refuse to move at all. (Which is different, just to be absolutely clear, from different polls reaching much the same result at a particular time. That may give you increased confidence in the accuracy of the numbers but it still only expresses a particular moment so unless the numbers are overwhelmingly one way, it doesn't tell you a whole lot.)

It's with that in mind that two results from a recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll stand out. One is the continued decline of the public's judgment of Bush both on Iraq and in general.

The survey found that among all adults - not just likely voters - only 46 percent approved of Bush's performance in office - the lowest rating of his presidency in this poll.

After April's heavy casualties in Iraq and the emerging scandal of the treatment of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. troops, only 44 percent said they believed the war was worthwhile - another low.

Fifty-four percent said last year's invasion of Iraq was a mistake, and only 41 percent of adults said they believed Bush was doing a good job handling the war.

Only 37 percent of those surveyed said they were satisfied with the way things are going in the United States - a sharp drop from early January, when 55 percent said they were satisfied.

The other was the continued deadlock between Bush and Kerry.

Bush led Kerry 48 percent to 47 percent in the survey - a reversal of a poll taken last week, which found the Massachusetts senator with a 1-point edge, 49-48.

With a margin of error of 3%, that shift means nothing.

What I keep wondering about is why, if the public's view of Bush continues to fall, the effects haven't seemed to show up in the presidential horse race. I'd been saying all along that the election will be another cliff-hanger, and so far the numbers keep saying the same. What does that mean? That more and more people are disapproving of Bush but are going to vote for him anyway? If the polls are accurate, that's exactly what it means.

Why hasn't Kerry been able to take advantage of this? Two reasons suggest themselves. One is that the same poll indicates - as again, have others before, that is, it's remained true over time - that Bush has a large lead in the area of dealing with terrorism, where people say Bush would do a better job by a 17-point margin. That's all based on PR, smoke, and mirrors (Exactly what has he done to reduce terrorism?), but it's still a real and huge gap. Enough people, apparently, feel "safer" with Bush to overcome their doubts about Iraq, the economy, and the general direction of the country.

Here's the other reason:

Shedding Populist Tone, Kerry Starts Move to Middle

Phoenix, May 7 (New York Times) - He has dropped the red-meat riff on "Benedict Arnold C.E.O.'s." He is talking up tax cuts for corporations, playing up his deficit-cutting credentials and taking on teachers over pay-for-performance.

And on Friday, John Kerry came to the centrist Democratic Leadership Council here sounding little like the outraged, populist scourge of special interests and big business who fended off challenges from his left in the Democratic primaries.

"I believe, as I know you do, that the private sector is the engine of economic growth," Mr. Kerry told the group, which helped form many of Bill Clinton's policies on the economy, welfare and trade. "I don't pretend that it's the government that does it all. I refuse to lead a party that loves jobs but hates the people that create them."

Kerry has taken to calling himself an "entrepreneurial Democrat" and pointedly told a group of rich potential donors "I am not a redistributionist Democrat." He parades his support of Clinton-era welfare deform and promises that his "market-oriented, incentive-based" health care plan "will bring businesses to the table."

In other words, he's jettisoning the things that made people support him in the first place in search of the elusive "middle," which really means the endorsement of corporate America. "I'm safe," he's telling them. "No threat to your interests. All that stuff I said before? I didn't mean any of it."

Some call this a typical candidate track, going for the base during the primaries and moving to the "center" after them. I call it doing a Dukakis, running away from any notion of a passionate commitment to anything save perhaps "efficiency" and certainly ducking and hiding from anything that might be called gasp liberal. (I remember when the GOP said it was going to "nail Dukakis with the 'L' word." His response was "The 'L' word is "leadership." Big whoop.)

The result is to minimize both the actual and the apparent differences between him and Bush while conceding all the passion to the other side. In 1988, after it was too late, Michael Dukakis decided he had nothing to lose and started talking from his heart about what he really believed, offering what could be called in the best sense of the term a populist message. Not radical by any means, but at least openly liberal. In the last few weeks of the campaign he significantly closed the gap but fell clearly short.

Again, I believe the nation is too - I hate to use the word but it does seem to fit - polarized between "All Bush" and "Anybody But" for the final result to be anything but close. But I can also see a mini-version of 1988 playing out again, with John Kerry realizing too late that pursuing the "middle" with a seeming muddy lack of conviction carries a real price.